Secularism on RTE's "the Frontline" tomorrow

MagicMarker

Zamboni wrote: »

You left out the imo at the end of that sentence...;)

No I didn't.

kylith

Zamboni wrote: »

Is it a fact that people against gay marriage are indecent human beings?

Is denying someone of their rights because of their sexual orientation the action of a decent person?

sephir0th

Zamboni wrote: »

Is it a fact that people against gay marriage are indecent human beings?

Why are you against gay marriage?

Zamboni

kylith wrote: »

Is denying someone of their rights because of their sexual orientation the action of a decent person?

No. Certainly not.
But are they indecent if they are simply against the idea?

It just appears that there are now pre-requistites for atheists to have a certain stance on topics ranging from IVF to gay marriage from reading various recent threads.
And I feel it is wrong to claim people are indecent humans if they are not managing to keep up with the zeitgeist, especially older humans (imo).

against the idea but would not vote against it given the choice, no, do what you like
against the idea and would vote against it given the choice, yes, we have a problem

Zamboni

sephir0th wrote: »

Why are you against gay marriage?

Not sure where you got that.
At best, like with most subjects that don't directly affect me, I'm indifferent.

MagicMarker

Atheism doesn't come into it at all.

It's called progression, it's been happening for decades, even centuries. It's slow, but we can only go one step at a time. Like the emancipation of the slaves, the right for black people to sit at the front of the bus, to go to school with white children. Women's rights to vote, the right to divorce, the right to abortion, the right to actually be openly gay, and now the right for gay people to marry.

Knasher

Zamboni wrote: »

No. Certainly not.
But are they indecent if they are simply against the idea?

It just appears that there are now pre-requistites for atheists to have a certain stance on topics ranging from IVF to gay marriage from reading various recent threads.
And I feel it is wrong to claim people are indecent humans if they are not managing to keep up with the zeitgeist, especially older humans (imo).

I think its reasonable that if somebody expresses an opinion which runs contrary to the popular stance in the community and where the usual religious reasons for holding that opinion cannot apply, that the person be asked to justify their reasoning.

seamus

Knasher wrote: »

I think its reasonable that if somebody expresses an opinion which runs contrary to the popular stance in the community and where the usual religious reasons for holding that opinion cannot apply, that the person be asked to justify their reasoning.

FYP

Zamboni

Knasher wrote: »

I think its reasonable that if somebody expresses an opinion which runs contrary to the popular stance in the community and where the usual religious reasons for holding that opinion cannot apply, that the person be asked to justify their reasoning.

There is no "Please Explain" on a vote form.
If there was a referendum on gay marriage tomorrow, I doubt it would pass.
Would that mean that the majority of Irish people are indecent humans?

It appears we are all for free and critical thinking and informed decisions (as long as you think the same way we do).

We're still waiting for you to explain the free and critical thinking and informed decision that could be behind opposing gay marriage. "everyone else thinks so too" isn't part of it

Mark Hamill

Zamboni wrote: »

Is it a fact that people against gay marriage are indecent human beings?

Is there a reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't amount to being a homophobic bigot?

oldrnwisr

Zamboni wrote: »

If there was a referendum on gay marriage tomorrow, I doubt it would pass.

Really?

Poll: 73% of public back allowing same-sex marriage in Constitution

Red C Report (referenced in article above)

Zamboni wrote: »

It appears we are all for free and critical thinking and informed decisions (as long as you think the same way we do).

Strange then that I haven't seen any free-thinking argument against gay marriage.

joseph brand

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is there a reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't amount to being a homophobic bigot?

It's a good way of hiding the fact that the person is 'in the closet'. :pac:

Knasher

Zamboni wrote: »

There is no "Please Explain" on a vote form.
If there was a referendum on gay marriage tomorrow, I doubt it would pass.
Would that mean that the majority of Irish people are indecent humans?

It appears we are all for free and critical thinking and informed decisions (as long as you think the same way we do).

Not at all, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but I don't think it is unfair that if you choose to share them that you are also expected to share the reasoning behind them. Otherwise all that can be said is what is being said, that we disagree with you and we would like to know why.

I am absolutely in favor of informed decisions, and the only way I have of reaching them is through an examination of the pertinent facts, if somebody with the same goal has reached a different decision, then the assumption must be that they have either different facts or used the same facts to reach a different conclusion. If it happens that I am then one who is uninformed or misguided then the quickest way for me to ascertain that is to ask how you reached your conclusion. And to reciprocate through debate. Why is that an unreasonable thing to ask for?

If the gay marriage referendum comes and the people refuse to debate or discuss the reasoning behind how they are going to vote, regardless of what side of the debate they are on, then frankly yes they are being unreasonable and indecent.

Zamboni

bluewolf wrote: »

We're still waiting for you to explain the free and critical thinking and informed decision that could be behind opposing gay marriage. "everyone else thinks so too" isn't part of it

Hey Bluewolf,

So I might try and get out of this nice hole I've dug for myself due mostly to the fact that I am crap at articulation.

I was trying to make a point earlier that it appears atheists (well, posters here anyway) have a similar stance on various topics ranging from IVF to gay marriage. The only reason I brought up the gay thing was it appeared earlier in this thread.

Then I got dragged off because MM said this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77567572&postcount=79

Now I (secretly) love MM but I do think it is wrong to imply that people are indecent human beings for merely holding an opinion.
If thought crime was feasible, I'd suggest we'd be all fvcked.

And as you correctly pointed out, there is a difference between having an idea and using it against someone.

I suppose, overall in, I was just touching in the idea that a lot of atheists seem to have similar opinions on a host of topics and I wonder if this is due to a genuine critical evaluation of issues or if its just picking up a pitchfork and joining the crowd?

eoin5

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is there a reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't amount to being a homophobic bigot?

You could be against marriage in general I guess, not sure after that.

Dades

Zamboni wrote: »

I was trying to make a point earlier that it appears atheists (well, posters here anyway) have a similar stance on various topics ranging from IVF to gay marriage. The only reason I brought up the gay thing was it appeared earlier in this thread.

That probably has a lot to do with the fact that the opponents of such stances are usually so because of their religious position. Take last night's Frontline, for example. Any opponent of gay marriage spoken to used their religion to justify their stance.

I do see where you're coming from asking the question, but people will be very hard pushed to find a non-religious reason other than "it makes me uncomfortable", or "it's always been a man and women". None of which really constitute a reason to deny the right - I mean it's not compulsory gay marriage, right?

Knasher

Zamboni wrote: »

I suppose, overall in, I was just touching in the idea that a lot of atheists seem to have similar opinions on a host of topics and I wonder if this is due to a genuine critical evaluation of issues or if its just picking up a pitchfork and joining the crowd?

Thats a fair enough observation. Atheists tend to occupy the same end of the political spectrum. So there is a certain uniformity of opinion in comparison to society in general. I suspect that it is a little artificial, largely owing to our position in society, and that as we move to a more diverse society the atheist community will diversify on opinion more.

That's not to say we are completely uniform though, free will and how to best marinate a baby are always contentious topics.

seamus

I think it's probably more to do with that nasty word libertarianism. With an atheist viewpoint comes the realisation that in the absence of a higher power and a universal set of moral laws, everyone should be allowed do whatever the hell they like so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

There are plenty of topics where atheists strongly diverge because they're not traditionally rooted in religious morals or otherwise fall into moral grey areas; Abortion and animal rights are two examples.

MagicMarker

To clarify, I don't think someone who is against gay marriage cannot be a decent person. I just think they're lacking somewhat in the area of decency.

I'm sure even Hitler was a good laugh after a couple of pints.

darjeeling

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

David Quinn's slimey nature was highlighted for me when he brought up China, highlighting it as being "Secularist and Communist"... I'm sure he was making the association to plant that seed in peoples minds that secularism leads to communism, human rights atrocities and whatever else people would care to infer.

He also described the UK as more secular than Ireland. I think he's mixing up secular with atheist, and I think that misunderstanding is not uncommon on the religious side in this debate.

The UK is less religious than Ireland, but also constitutionally less secular. It has bishops sitting in the House of Lords by virtue of their office, and the head of state as Supreme Governor of an established church.

China may or may not be less religious than Ireland, but, given its history of religious persecution, it cannot be described as secular in any Western democratic sense.

To pick a more appropriate reference, America is probably more religious than Ireland yet much more secular, as Congress is prohibited from making any law to establish a religion or prevent free religious expression.

If religious people are being persuaded that secularism is synonymous with atheism, they are going to oppose it. If instead they can be shown that secularism can actually guarantee the freedoms of religion, they may be more supportive.

As an aside, it may not be the most helpful thing that 'Atheist Ireland' is campaigning for secularism, as I'm sure most or all of its members would be opposed to living in an atheist state. Maybe 'Atheism Ireland' would be a better name?

robindch

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm sure even Hitler was a good laugh after a couple of pints.

Unlikely, since Adolf was a teetotaller.

That said, there was an interesting talk some years ago on BBC R4 given by Michael Charlton recounting the time he interviewed Albert Speer, Hitler's architect at some point during the 1960's. Said that Speer maintained that Hitler spent a lot of time being urbane and pleasant, and not behaving like the ranting, raving, strutting nutter that the History Channel tends to portray him as.

Cool! Just seen that Charlton's series is available for download here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/archive/1028064.stm

Recommended(*)

(*) shocked to see it's 12 years ago...

robindch

Zamboni wrote: »

[...] I wonder if this is due to a genuine critical evaluation of issues or if its just picking up a pitchfork and joining the crowd?

Making the reasonable assumption there's a consistent, discoverable reality out there and that this can be understood by prioritizing honesty and facts above anything else, it's reasonable to conclude that this if lots of people adopt this approach, they should converge to the same general set of beliefs concerning the world.

Also, not having a supremacist ideology to defend, atheists tend not to reach to their pitchforks to resolve conflicts.

Galvasean

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I dont fathom gay men who remain catholic. i really dont.

A friend of mine is gay and Catholic. I don't understand his position at all. He doesn't go to mass and is sexually active too, but tows the, "I'm still Catholic!!" line.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How about "this is the 21st century - time to jettison all that old hat hocus pocus".

Forgetting of course that in a century or two, your view will be old hat too.

Anti is back!!!!

*hugs*

Dades wrote: »

I mean it's not compulsory gay marriage, right?

RIGHT?!?!?!? :eek:

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

That said, there was an interesting talk some years ago on BBC R4 given by Michael Charlton recounting the time he interviewed Albert Speer, Hitler's architect at some point during the 1960's.

on the subject of speer - gitta sereny's biography of him is one of the best biographies i've ever read. highly recommended.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

on the subject of speer - gitta sereny's biography of him is one of the best biographies i've ever read. highly recommended.

Her Into That Darkness is excellent, if harrowing, reading too. Have added her Speer book to my Amazon wishlist -- ta.

Just relistened to the Charlton above. Great stuff.

CerebralCortex

Ghost Buster wrote: »

That was the one moment where my cuppa came close to being launched telly-wards. He insists that he is catholic but that the bible can be dismissed as it was written by men. So where does he get his catholicism from. Does he have a direct line to God?
I dont fathom gay men who remain catholic. i really dont.

Like this twat for example.

sephir0th

Just watching this now. Once again, people don't understand what secularism means.

Tigger

gay people are people and should have all the rights i ewnjoy as a non-gayperson

anyone who disagrees is unevolved, my opinion.
some can be excused as they don't believe in evolution but i'm surprised that an athiest dosen't get that there are black people white pepple and all in between , gay people straight people and all in between